In 2019, Prof. James Ron of the University of Minnesota and colleagues published an article in the Washington Post reporting that some two thirds of American adults opposed US anti-terror airstrikes abroad if those strikes killed civilians. The survey included a nationally representative sample of 2,000 adults supplemented by a 1,000-person sample of persons reported having voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primaries. Ron did this research together with Prof. Howard Lavine, also of the University of Minnesota, with the support of Human Rights Watch and the Center for Victims of Torture.
Although most Americans were opposed such airstrikes that killed civilians, early Trump supporters were much more sanguine; only 29 percent of the Trump sample opposed such anti-terror attacks. Other factors also mattered. Respondents who self identified as "strong Republicans," for example, (regardless of their views towards Donald Trump) were 12 percent more likely to support airstrikes that killed civilians than "strong Democrats." Respondents who were most strongly opposed to immigration into the United States, moreover, were 25 percent more supportive of airstrikes than those most strongly in favor of immigration.
Trump supporters were not impervious to persuasion, however. When Ron and his colleagues told a subset of Trump voters that US "military leaders" also opposed airstrikes that killed civilians, they were more likely to oppose them as well. Trump supporters tend to trust the US armed forces, and if prompted by military leaders to respect human rights, some Trump voters can be persuaded to do the same.
To read the 2019 Washington Post article in full, please visit https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/06/no-americans-dont-support-airstrikes-that-kill-civilians-even-when-they-target-terrorists/.
Although most Americans were opposed such airstrikes that killed civilians, early Trump supporters were much more sanguine; only 29 percent of the Trump sample opposed such anti-terror attacks. Other factors also mattered. Respondents who self identified as "strong Republicans," for example, (regardless of their views towards Donald Trump) were 12 percent more likely to support airstrikes that killed civilians than "strong Democrats." Respondents who were most strongly opposed to immigration into the United States, moreover, were 25 percent more supportive of airstrikes than those most strongly in favor of immigration.
Trump supporters were not impervious to persuasion, however. When Ron and his colleagues told a subset of Trump voters that US "military leaders" also opposed airstrikes that killed civilians, they were more likely to oppose them as well. Trump supporters tend to trust the US armed forces, and if prompted by military leaders to respect human rights, some Trump voters can be persuaded to do the same.
To read the 2019 Washington Post article in full, please visit https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/06/no-americans-dont-support-airstrikes-that-kill-civilians-even-when-they-target-terrorists/.
